Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/53/2015

Bachu Venkata Nagendra Kumar, s/o Subba Rayudu. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ACN Cables Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Managing Director. - Opp.Party(s)

A.Chenchaiah

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :04-06-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:24-02-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the 24^th day of  February, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.53/2015

Bachu Venkata Nagendra Kumar,

S/o.Subba Rayudu,

Hindu, Aged about 39 years,

Presently residing at Flat No.402,

Pavani Nivas Apartment, T.Nagar,

Vedayapalem, Nellore.                                                                        ..… Complainant 

                                                                           Vs.

1.	ACN Cables Private Limited,  Represented by it’s Managing Director, 16-2-230,  Dr.Anil Kumar Reddy Towers, Near Sunday Market, Nellore-524 001.
2.	The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by  the Revenue Divisional Officer,                                                                      Nellore.                                                                                       ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 17-02-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri A. Chenchaiah, advocate for the complainant and                                                               Sri R. Roja Reddy, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and Sri K. Raghunatha Reddy, Government Pleader for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This  complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to  restore the cable connection to the house of the complainant immediately, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, deficiency in service and negligence etc., and costs of Rs.5,000/-  and such other further reliefs.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that complainant is the customer of ACN cable private limited i.e., 1^st opposite party and enjoying the services  and viewing  the telecast T.V. serials etc., by way of cable connection.  The 1^st opposite party collected Rs.300/- towards the advance  of deposit for providing  the said cable connection vide I.D.No.10264464 from the complainant.   On 25-04-2015 the cable connection was disconnectioned  abruptly and illegally  by the 1^st  opposite party without any prior notice although he was regular in paying the monthly subscription.  Inspite of reported the above said matter to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party did not head the request  of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party demanded the complainant to purchase set  top  box from the 1^st opposite party  otherwise the cable connection cannot be restored eventhough the set up box is not mandatory at present in Nellore as per Government Rules .  The said illegal disconnection also informed to 2^nd opposite party but no action was taken by them eventhough duty caste bound on them to safeguard and  protect the rights of  cable connection holders.  The said illegal cable disconnection without any notice and  demand to purchase set up box constitutes gross negligence.  Hence, the complainant prays to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to restore the cable connection  and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

 

            3.         The 1^st opposite party filed written version denying  all the averments made in the complaint except that of admitted certain facts.  The 1^st opposite party submitted that as per the Ministry of Information and Broad casting notification dated 11^th September, 2014 all cable operators having  their operations in DAS Phase III cites / towns / areas shall have to transmit or re-transmit programmers of any channel in an encrypted form through a digital addressable system effective on or before 31^st December, 2015 (The copy of the notification dated 11^th September, 2014 is annexed  as Annexure “A”).  It is further submitted that the process of digitization starts  with the  swapping of analogue customers to digital customers by installing a Set Top Box (STB) at their places of  residence / business.   It is also further submitted that M/s. ACN Cable Private Limited is the only cable operator / MSO in Nellore to avoid any kind of   contingency / scarcity of set-top boxes, the 1^st opposite party has undertaken a  phase by phase digitisation of Nellore as per the aforesaid  notification.  Accordingly in Nellore town, digitalization of  Vedayapalem area commenced in the month of April, 2015.  As soon as digitalization commence in any area the analog signal connection automatically stands cut off.  As such the opposite party not in a position  to restore the connection of the complaint person.  It is further submitted that before commencing digitalization  wide  publicity  was given, every day through electronic media apart from informing all the customers / consumers by the local area operators alongwith technicians of the 1^st opposite party about the decision of the Government for digitalization,  cutoff date and also the benefits of digitalization.  In the same course before commencing of digitalization of cable T.V.  connections of Vedayapalem all the customers including  the complainant were repeatedly informed  by the local area operators, collection boys and technicians of the 1^st opposite party and so the allegation of the complainant as to want of notice is utterly false and motivated.   Inspite of repeated reminders  in the above stated manner, the complainant was very callous  towards digitalization (not willing to take a STB) although it is  beneficial to him in the long run as envisaged by the Ministry.  It is further submitted that  the 1^st opposite party has discharged his duties as per the existing Government policy  and notification and the question of the Government policy by the complainant is unlawful and hence the relief claimed by the complainant  is unjustified and the complaint may be dismissed and direct the complainant to pay the costs of Rs.9,75,000/- to the 1^st opposite party as a compensation  for  unlawful harassment alongwith costs of Rs.25,000/-.

 

            4.         The 2^nd opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint except that  of admitted certain facts.  The 2^nd opposite party submitted that he has no way  connected to the 1^st opposite party ACN  Cables Private Limited, Nellore and their activities.  Since he has no connected to the subject matter dispute and unnecessarily impleaded in this matter with a view to harass the 2^nd opposite party, the complaint may be dismissed  against  the 2^nd opposite party with costs.

 

            5.         The points for determination would be:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, if so?  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. To what relief?

 

           6.          Before proceeding the  case  on merits the Interim Application in I.A.No.81/2015  on the file of this Forum filed  alongwith complaint seeking interim relief  of   restoring the cable connection to the house of the complainant pending  disposal of  main C.C.  alongwith costs and the said  petition  was allowed in part on 06-08-2015 ordering as directing the 1^st respondent /  1^st opposite party  to restore cable T.V.  connection to the house of the petitioner immediately and also Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  five thousands only) payable towards the compensation for causing discomfort, inconvenience and mental worry to him and the petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards  the costs of the petition within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.  The said interim order passed till the  main consumer case  disposed off.  In compliance of the above said order, the 1^st opposite party deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.025231, dated 26-08-2015, Axis Bank, Nellore on 28-08-2015.  Since the complainant has got relief as per the orders in I.A.No.81/2015, dated 06-08-2015, no need to  discuss further in this case.

 

7.         In order to substantiate the evidences on both sides both parties did not file their chief affidavits for establishing their case inspite of  several adjournments given.  Both parties  called absent and there  was no representation on their behalf.  Hence  the case is proceeded with on merits as per the material available on record. 

 

8.         Before proceeding to decide on this aspect, a blunt reading of                      Section-13 (ii) of Consumer Protection Act would highlight  the fact that  a consumer dispute under the Act can be settled by the District Forum only on the basis of some evidence.  Clause (ii) of Section-13 clearly lays down that even when the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case before the Forum, the matter has still to decided on the basis of evidence  brought  to its notice by the complainant himself.  Thus even in exparte proceedings, the decision of the Forum has to necessarily  rests on the basis of evidence.  Obviously,  it would be mere so whether  the opposite party comes forward to deny or dispute the allegations made in the complaint.  Such situation was governed by clause (i) of Section-13 and by statutory mandate  such a consumer dispute can only be settled on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant or the opposite party.  In a contested mater pertaining to consumer dispute, the District Forum has to rest on the basis of evidence.    Further, the orders of redressal Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986  are quasi judicial have to be based on  acceptable evidence.

 

 

9.         In the instant case, there was no evidence placed before this Forum by both the parties.  Hence, this Forum cannot act in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.  As has been pointed above, the answer to the question posed  at the outside is rendered in the inactive and statutory mandate of the act is that the same has to be settled on the basis of evidence, which is totally lacking here.

 

10.       Regretfully, we find no option except to dismiss the case for  non prosecution by the complainant. 

 

 

 

            11.       POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.  Each party shall bear their own costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 24^th  day of   February, 2016.

 

 

                Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

                                                                                                                         Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri A. Chenchaiah, Advocate,  24/559, Mulapet, Nelloret-524 001.
2.	Sri  R. Roja Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.
3.	Sri K. Raghunatha Reddy, Government Pleader, James Garden, Nellore-2.

 

Date when free copy was issued: